From: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
To: Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com>
Thread-Topic: [TLS] Adoption of TLS-LTS
Thread-Index: AdG/9CVqy8MYXur6TqWx/88FbT3L7gBWWRwAABuaKxIABSL9gAD3FFPHAAVV+IAAdPsM5w==
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 06:13:31 +0000
Message-ID: <9A043F3CF02CD34C8E74AC1594475C73F4CA2A5C@uxcn10-5.UoA.auckland.ac.nz>
References: <9A043F3CF02CD34C8E74AC1594475C73F4C9CA49@uxcn10-5.UoA.auckland.ac.nz>
 <22902566.AuEvmjhU12@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com>
 <9A043F3CF02CD34C8E74AC1594475C73F4CA0C94@uxcn10-5.UoA.auckland.ac.nz>,
 <1843800.YErRuY4C85@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <1843800.YErRuY4C85@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com>
Accept-Language: en-NZ, en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-NZ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/k0xldXjtPMihhDGy2G6h42cZff8>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Adoption of TLS-LTS
Precedence: list

Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com> writes:=0A=
>On Monday 13 June 2016 19:51:42 Peter Gutmann wrote:=0A=
>> Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com> writes:=0A=
>> >to be pedantic, the RFC describes itself "a profile" while in reality=
=0A=
>> >it modifies the protocol in a way that will make it incompatible=0A=
>> >with "vanilla" TLS 1.2 implementations=0A=
>> =0A=
>> Oh, right.  Well that's easily fixed, I used "profile" because I=0A=
>> couldn't think of a better term, the best I could come up with is=0A=
>> "plan", but it's not really a plan either.  If people think "plan" is=0A=
>> better than "profile", and it deals with Russ' objection, I'll change=0A=
>> it to that.  Alternatively, if you can think of a better term than=0A=
>> "plan", let me know (or forever hold your peace :-).=0A=
>=0A=
>"TLS refitting for Long Term Support"=0A=
>=0A=
>"Adaptation of TLS for Long Term Support"=0A=
>=0A=
>"LTS revision of TLS"=0A=
>=0A=
>"LTS addendum to TLS 1.2" (amendment?)=0A=
=0A=
So after some discussion with some of the people who'll be using this, we c=
ame=0A=
up with:=0A=
=0A=
  TLS 1.2 Update for Long-term Support=0A=
=0A=
among other suggestions, but that seemed to be the best one.  Other options=
=0A=
were things like "modernisation" or "improvement" (and one of them suggeste=
d=0A=
"adaptation" as well), but I think "update" says it best.  "Revision" is mo=
re=0A=
or less the same as "Update", so I guess either would fit, but I'm leaning=
=0A=
more towards "Update".=0A=
=0A=
If no-one has any other suggestions I'll post an updated draft, I'm just=0A=
waiting for permission to include the details of the interop test server th=
at=0A=
people can run their clients against.=0A=
=0A=
Peter.=0A=